Jesus's "siblings".

[quietthinker]

Are you going to answer the questions under each section of verses in the opening post, or do you refuse?

What you're really saying Sigma is that Mary never had a nookie with Joseph because somehow you think that a nookie is somehow associated with sin. Isn't that the case?.......and so a long protracted argument needs to be developed to prove she had a sexless marriage. Isn't that a typically religious manoeuvre?

 

[rwb]

Are you going to answer the questions under each section of verses in the opening post, or do you refuse?

Why, since I don't believe you have proven or can prove your main assumption? Can you bring to the discussion any passage or verse that would give credibility to the opinion that Joseph may have been widowed with children before he married Mary?

 

[rwb]

Mark didn't write that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) are Jesus's siblings, but rather His "ἀδελφοί" (sing. adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi) and "αδελφαι" (sing. adelphē; pl. αδελφαι adelphai), translated to "brothers" in English, and it has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman", "disciple/follower", "one of the same faith", and "a near kinsman, or relative", e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, etc. As of right now, you've only assumed the type of kinship that applies is siblings, and an assumption doesn't "leave little doubt" that they were Jesus's siblings.

But only the siblings of Jesus would have been those "in his own house." I'm not disputing that Jesus often called those of faith brethren and sisters. That much is true, as you've clearly proven from the Bible. What I dispute is you bringing assumption into the Word without proving what you assume, that is that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.

My apologies Sigma the widowed assumption was not from you. The only assumption you make is that Mary could not have had children after Christ because she remains perpetually a virgin.

 

[Sigma]

What you're really saying Sigma is that Mary never had a nookie with Joseph because somehow you think that a nookie is somehow associated with sin. Isn't that the case?.......and so a long protracted argument needs to be developed to prove she had a sexless marriage. Isn't that a typically religious manoeuvre?

The purpose of this thread is explained in the opening post.

 

[quietthinker]

The purpose of this thread is explained in the opening post.

Why not admit it's the association of sex and childbirth and that it's the sex thing you want to get around? My guess is that for those who don't hold your view it's as straight forward as the nose on your face. Also, your attempt to dodge the issue by your post above, polite though it is, only reinforces the slippery religious nature.

 

[Sigma]

Why not admit it's the association of sex and childbirth and that it's the sex thing you want to get around? My guess is that for those who don't hold your view it's as straight forward as the nose on your face. Also, your attempt to dodge the issue by your post above, polite though it is, only reinforces the slippery religious nature.

As I said, the purpose of this thread is explained in the opening post. If you want to suspect or accuse me of ulterior motives go ahead and play pretend with yourself.

 

[Illuminator]

• For ancient Hebrew, one belongs either to the family in-group or not. . . .
• The psychological and anthropological reality of speaking and writing in a language of another culture is, however, more complex. I was able to witness it when I was living in Abidjan, the major city of the Ivory Coast, in West Africa. It is today a big city of about four million inhabitants that grew up in a zone originally scarcely populated. The sparse original population was not able to absorb the waves of immigrants coming from all over the former French colonies in West Africa.
• The only language all these people had in common was French, and French became thus the native language of Abidjan. In most native languages of West Africa, no distinction is made between a “brother” and a “cousin,” whereas such a distinction exists in French. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Abidjan, whose mother tongue is French, who have been raised and educated in French, continue to use the French word for “brother” when they speak of a “cousin.” Using the French word for “cousin” would betray the way they envision social and family relationships. When the people of Abidjan want to specify that “brother” means a true blood sibling, they need to add “same father, same mother” (“même père, même mère”).
• Full siblings are a particular kind of brothers; they do not constitute the benchmark of brotherhood.
• The socio-cultural milieu of the authors of the New Testament is Judaism. So, we can accept the idea that, even if their text does not suppose a Hebrew or Aramaic substrate, in their use of Greek words they would naturally convey the way their own Judaic society and culture envision social and family relationships. . . . Nowhere in the New Testament are the “brothers” of Jesus also identified as “sons of Mary” within the same context. Whereas, again in Mark 6:3, Jesus is identified as “the son of Mary” by the people of Nazareth. source

 

[Aunty Jane]

Why not? What is there in scripture to declare otherwise? Not writing this as a supporter of the cult of Mary, just from the view of biblical integrity.

First you have to address the reason why anyone would even suggest or assume that these were not his siblings as the scripture clearly indicates. Is there a scriptural reason to assume that Mary and Joseph didn’t have a normal marital relationship and were blessed with more children? If so where is it?

Only the Catholic teaching of an ever Virgin Mary would need to raise that question in the first place.

This issue has been flogged to death already….

 

[Sigma]

First you have to address the reason why anyone would even suggest or assume that these were not his siblings as the scripture clearly indicates.

If Scripture "clearly indicates" Jesus had siblings, you should be able to answer the questions under each section of verses in the opening post. Will you do that, or do you refuse?

 

[Sigma]

Thus far, when asked, the following members haven't answered with whether or not they will answer the questions below each section of verses in the opening post:

@Eternally Grateful
@BeyondET
@BlessedPeace
@rwb
@Aunty Jane

 

[Aunty Jane]

Thus far, when asked, the following members haven't answered with whether or not they will answer the questions below each section of verses in the opening post:

@Eternally Grateful
@BeyondET
@BlessedPeace
@rwb
@Aunty Jane

Oh for goodness sake…..give it up. You are convincing no one….
Unless there is a valid reason WHY Mary and Joseph could not have had more children…or a single verse of scripture to support the perpetual virginity of a woman who has given birth….it’s a dead conversation.

Giving birth would have destroyed her virginity, not to mention normal marital relations with her legal husband.

 

[Sigma]

Oh for goodness sake…..give it up. You are convincing no one….
Unless there is a valid reason WHY Mary and Joseph could not have had more children…or a single verse of scripture to support the perpetual virginity of a woman who has given birth….it’s a dead conversation.

Giving birth would have destroyed her virginity, not to mention normal marital relations with her legal husband.

You haven't shown why Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's siblings, because you refuse to answer the questions under each section of verses in the opening post.

 

[Aunty Jane]

You haven't shown why Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's siblings, because you refuse to do that by answering the questions under each section of verses in the opening post.

You are like a dog with a bone…..isn’t it enough for your fellow Catholics to believe this nonsense? You can believe whatever you like, but you will never convince a non-Catholic that what you believe is the truth.

Why are you trying to peddle it here? The Bible hardly mentions Mary and yet you set her up as if she is more important than the son she bore. You have people bowing to her, praying to her, and popes kissing her effigy…the idolatry is disgusting to those who are not Catholic.…do you understand this?

 

[Sigma]

You are like a dog with a bone…..isn’t it enough for your fellow Catholics to believe this nonsense? You can believe whatever you like, but you will never convince a non-Catholic that what you believe is the truth.

Why are you trying to peddle it here? The Bible hardly mentions Mary and yet you set her up as if she is more important than the son she bore. You have people bowing to her, praying to her, and popes kissing her effigy…the idolatry is disgusting to those who are not Catholic.…do you understand this?

You claim Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's siblings. In an effort to see you try and support that claim, I challenged you to answer the questions under each section of verses in the opening post, and you refused.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I challenged you to answer the questions under each section of verses in the opening post, and you refused.

Yes you did, but it’s a futile exercise and I will not be responding to you again.
The excuses you use are pathetic because, like all things related to Mary, they are not supported by God’s word.
Let it go…..

 

[quietthinker]

As I said, the purpose of this thread is explained in the opening post. If you want to suspect or accuse me of ulterior motives go ahead and play pretend with yourself.

No accusations Sigma. Just putting the facts of the matter on display.
I have noted however, you are evasive even while demanding others answer your questions.

 

[Sigma]

Yes you did, but it’s a futile exercise...

In my view, defending a claim is never futile, because it shows conviction, and could lead to others accepting the Truth, if it's indeed True.

 

[Sigma]

No accusations Sigma. Just putting the facts of the matter on display.

What facts?

 

[quietthinker]

What facts?

ahhhhhh, the bliss of denial!

 

[Sigma]

ahhhhhh, the bliss of denial!

Do you refuse to say which facts?

I have noted however, you are evasive even while demanding others answer your questions.

Evasive about what? Who have I demanded to answer my questions?